#50 Learn what “sexual objectification” means (and doesn’t mean).

This post has been floating around in my “Drafts” folder for a while, and I’ve been starting and stopping it because I couldn’t really get to a good explanation of what sexual objectification is, but lucky for me the discussion has cropped up elsewhere (Skepchick brought it to my attention) and a TED Talk does the hard work for me about why sexual objectification is a problem.

So that’s the resource I am directing you to, and if you have problems with the analysis in this resource, please address them at the YouTube site. I didn’t make the video and don’t want to argue about it. If you think have a better resource for people about sexual objectification, leave a link in the comment section.

But then I hear things like this: “I’m not sexually objectifying her–she’s sexually objectifying herself!” and that’s a misunderstanding I want to clear up. Women do not sexually objectify themselves. Women make choices for themselves that may result in other people sexually objectifying them (homework: read up on the “Patriarchal Bargain”), but that is not their responsibility if someone else sexually objectifies them. The responsibility for sexual objectification falls on the person doing the objectifying. And this is a lot of what feels like talking in circles, so let me try to make it clearer with examples from grammar class and sentence construction.

Remember the lessons about how it’s not a complete sentence if there’s not a subject and a predicate? Well, the subject is the part of the sentence that is doing the action. Objects are the part of speech that have actions performed to them, with no input. The action affects them–they do not affect it.

She (subject) bought (action) the book (object).
The dog (subject) ate (action) his barf (object).
The car (subject) hit (action) the garage wall (object) at what I swear was essentially zero miles per hour.
He (subject) objectified (action) her (object).

But! But! But! they say. But, but, she was in a low-cut blouse! She WANTED to be sexually objectified. I did it, yes, but she did it to herself, first. This is a misunderstanding of what has happened. Once more for emphasis: A woman does not sexually objectify herself. She is the subject of the sentence that is her life, not the object..

She (subject) wore (action) sexy clothes (object).

When a woman is being sexually objectified, someone else’s sexual dreams/goals/desires are being projected onto her. These dreams/goals/desires have everything to do with the subject of that sentence and nothing to do with the woman being gazed at or objectified. It’s all in the subject’s head. All of it. The woman is a stand-in for what he (almost always a he) wants in this (metaphorical) sentence, and her dreams/goals/desires are totally irrelevant. She doesn’t matter beyond the point of what she can deliver to him for is own purposes.

What gets overlooked so often is that the woman has made decisions and has dreams/goals/desires of her own. There is a chance that her dreams/goals/desires overlap with the man objectifying her, but that still doesn’t mean she’s an object. She decided to wear those clothes in order to portray an image that suits her purposes. She has agency. She is acting. She is hoping to gain some personal benefit with her actions, and she has used her brain to think up a strategy that will help her meet her goals.

So this woman wearing sexy clothes to a bar? She is probably seeking a certain kind of attention that she wants (woman as subject). She’s not there to make the bar more fun for you by giving you something to look at (woman as object). This woman working as an underwear model? She is probably trying to earn a living and garner some security using skills and assets she worked hard to gain (woman as subject). She’s not there so you can jerk off to the catalog she appears in (woman as object). You want to have fun by seeing women in sexy clothes or jerk off to pictures of them in their underwear? Fine. Be the subject of your life! But don’t make the HUGE mistake of forgetting that you only have these women around performing these actions that you find personally beneficial because they had something to gain from the interaction. They aren’t there to serve you; they are serving themselves. They don’t dress or undress to make your life better; they are making their own life better.

Women are subjects, not objects. If you forget that… if you forget all that context in which women are making decisions that help them navigate a world that is structured to diminish their agency… if you fail to see them as people doing their best to get by just like you are… if you persist in assuming that women with goals that coincidentally match yours were working to meet your goals and not their own… you are developing bad habits and causing great harm.

Like this:

Related

9 Responses

Explain how sexual objectification of female characters in games work and why Riot Games is a sexist company.

This didn’t help me out at all to be honest.
You’re basically saying that if you think that women in pictures, pornos, catalogs and what not are there only to make your own life better you’re objectifying them.
Oh my god, who could have guessed? Everyone understands that they’re doing it to make a living. Or in the bar for instance, to attract men.

If everyone understood women were doing it for their own purposes, you would never hear the words “she sexually objectified herself.” I hear those words a lot. This post was written for the people who utter them.

Ooh, zing, dude hates your ideas and he made it known. And, madam, dude is obviously curious about something (not), so you’d better get to answering his question, stat (so that he can pick your answer apart and summarily dismiss it)!

The problem, I think, with a sexist dude’s interpretation of “she does it to fulfill her own needs” is that he will immediately fall back upon the trope of the conniving woman. Because, remember, if women act to satisfy our own needs and wants under Patriarchy, then we’re behaving inappropriately, by whatever explanation might work. If women engage in any kind of careful navigation through Patriarchy – that is, if we’re careful about our actions and aren’t always 100% upfront and arrogant about them, so as to effectively achieve what we want or need – then we’re being manipulative and conniving.

I loved that video. Caroline Heldman is incredible. I was conscious of her make-up in the film, as I’m always conscious of women’s make-up and fashion when they publicly present themselves (though I refrain from judgement – we’re all operating within Patriarchy), and it meant so much to me that she removed it at the end.

“Women are subjects, not objects. If you forget that… you are developing bad habits and causing great harm.”

I’m not sure I understand you.
First you say that objectification happens when ‘he desired her’. Then you write about how ‘he forgot she had her own reasons to want to be desired’, and you mention that this is causing great harm.
I can only assume that objectification is something you consider to be harmful, though that’s not explicitly written here.
From that, I’m not sure if objectification is neglecting one’s personal history (for example, appreciating a picture of a sexy model without thinking about that person beyond her attractiveness) or believing that one has no personal history (being convinced that nothing but your appreciation of her attractiveness matters to that model).
The first is not harmful (at least, not according to your conclusion) because it does not require the objectifier to forget that there is some history to be neglected, to forget that women are subjects. The second is not a society-wide problem, because only a few insane or very deluded people could ever forget that women are not selfless and have motives of their own.

So… what does sexual objectification means ? Which is it ?

Caroline Heldman in this video talks about sexual objectification as the focus put on a woman’s attractiveness.
That’s somewhat close to neglecting other aspects of the woman as a person. But as such, the term of objectification doesn’t fit so well. Everyone involved know that women are subjects – they just want them to conform to the norm and meet their desire for more attractiveness.
At work, at parties, at conferences, on the street, people who can feel attraction to women want to see attractive women (well, except for some religious types who call this a temptation), and people who want the attention of those people try to be attractive women.
I don’t think that this should be opposed.
I think it is a particular case of a positive dynamic in our lives. On one side, each of us want to function (sexually, but also socially, professionally, physically…), and to function well (be sexier, be friendlier, be more productive or creative, be more athletic…) or occasionally best (we all want to be the sexiest person in the room, or the …st person in the …, but most of us don’t really consider it a realistic goal). On the other side, we admire and apppreciate others who meet those goals.
Heldman mentions a number of downsides of what she calls “self-objectification”, but that could be more appropriately defined as sexual expectations. Women and girls who want to be attractive, or more attractive, happen sometimes to encounter negative effects.
Depression, eating disorders, body shame, sexual dysfunction, lower self-esteem.
She doesn’t mention why these problems appear. It’s simple, though : they appear when the person doesn’t meet its own expectations, or those of the rest of the world. It is not something that is specific to sexual objectification, It happens to anyone who wants to meet expectations, and fails – subjectively or objectively. The artist who wants to be acclaimed for its original creations and is not (or not enough so, or in a way it didn’t desire) can fall into depression and lose self-esteem too. Same for the student who fails to meet its parents’ expectations, or the employee who fails to meet its manager’s expectations. Body shame and sexual dysfunction are specific to sexual expectations, but there’s equivalencies : the student, artist or worker will feel dissatisfied and shame for its work, and be unable to perform as well.
Habitual body monitoring, lower GPA, female competition… those apply to any one who put a lot of effort into meeting expectations, regardless of its success. A student who wants to become a really good guitarist and spends a lot of time working on that will have a lower GPA too. Competition ? I think it’s as much a problem in regard to attractiveness as to productivity. Body monitoring ? That, for one, can’t be easily transposed to other aspects of life. But it’s not as bad as it sounds. Men too are self-conscious and check themselves and others regularily to be sure that their appearance and manners fit the image they want to project. Women have it worse without a doubt, but rarely to the point that this monitoring becomes a huge effort – especially compared with the effort required to walk around with heels, or to prepare oneself in the morning.

I don’t really understand what she means by depressed cognitive funcitonning and lower political efficacy, so I won’t comment on those.

So to sum that up, I think Heldman missed her own point. It’s not a problem of objectification, it’s a problem of expectations. Tables with feminine legs in advertisement are not to blame. Attraction towards attractive persons is. Affection for friendly persons is. Congratulations to good workers is. Attention paid to great art is. Etc.
Failure to meet expectations and to recieve the rewards creates suffering, and that suffering has negative consequences too. Unreasonable efforts made to meet expectations too.
We should strive to be more relaxed as a society, and not dwell on failures. In the workplace like in the streets. To achieve that, I don’t think that talking about “objectification” is useful.

One thing popped to my mind while I was writing that, though. Most of us appreciate and admire people who are successful in any given aspect of their life (attractiveness being one). But the success of others also creates resentment.
Sexual success is different from other kinds. Attractive women sometimes incur resentment from their wouldbe competitors, of course. But more importantly, they can face resentment from the objects of their success : men attracted to them. Some, out of jealousy for their success in being attractive, would want to punish them for it – either by acting like attractive woman are here at the disposal of men they attract (they are aware that it’s not the case and that acting like that is hurtful), or by trying to prevent them from being attractive.
They don’t actually forget that women have their own motives, they don’t believe them to be objects. It’s not objectification. They want to destroy their success, make it unenjoyable or unprofitable. It’s bad enough as it is, but it’s just that.
Well, I suppose it’s more complicated than that, but this is a part of it.

oh well..it´s our right to dress ourselves as slutys,but when guys treate us as sluts,they are sexist! tired and sick of this feminist hipocrisy.I wonder in wich way it is helping us to acheive equality,i just see it encouraging sexism,that´s why guys always think it´s their right to have hipersexualized female characters in games,in anime,in everywhere.

No, if a woman dresses a certain way and seems to “want” something, or is assumed so, that is not objectification. Would you say that a man dressing a certain way wanting something is being objectified? No you would not. But you forget men are objectified almost as much. Pay attention to the advertisements and to billboards. The same things are going on but no one pays attention to it or takes notice. That is called selective attention.